- From: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2010 19:58:27 -0500
- To: Shelley Powers <shelley.just@gmail.com>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, HTMLWG WG <public-html@w3.org>
Shelley Powers wrote: > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Sam Ruby wrote: >>> Shelley has observed a number of cases where the rationales that were >>> supposed to be provided were not adequate (and, no, I don't believe that >>> any response that amounts to "go dig in the email archives" is an >>> adequate response). >> This happens occasionally (especially on editorial issues) when I'm doing >> a lot of bugs at once. Everyone should please feel free to reopen bugs for >> which they feel my rationale was inadequate. >> >> -- > >> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > > You rather scathingly told me not to do this when I did, and told me > there was a procedure in place, and to raise an issue and NOT to > reopen the bug. I have no interest in revisiting the current set of WONTFIX bugs that led to the current set of open issues. Going forward, I would prefer reopening bugs with inadequate rationales over raising issues -- even if that should happen to be over the stated wishes of both the person raising the issue and the editor. And to be clear: by inadequate, I mean "not enough there", not "I disagree". > Shelley - Sam Ruby
Received on Tuesday, 19 January 2010 00:59:00 UTC